GRBs as reionization probes -...
Transcript of GRBs as reionization probes -...
GRBs as reionization probes
戸谷友則(TOTANI, Tomonori)Department of Astronomy, Univ. of Tokyo
GRB Workshop 2015RIKEN, 2015 Aug. 31 - Sep. 2
Talk Plan✦ concentrate on “Lyα damping wing fitting analysis” to get constraints on IGM neutral fraction
✦ review on GRBs as a reionization probe: the status before GRB 130606A
✦ On the results from GRB 130606A @ z=5.9✦ the best opportunity ever for reionization study by GRBs✦ controversy between Gemini/Subaru/VLT? what’s the origin?
✦ On the effect of Lyα cross section formulae (as a function of wavelength) adopted✦ need to be careful in the “high precision GRB cosmology era”
Cosmic Reionization ✦ The Universe (hydrogen) became neutral at z~1100✦ the cosmic recombination✦ observed as CMB
✦ Hydrogen in IGM today is highly ionized ✦ the Gunn-Peterson Test
✦ The universe must have been reionized at around z~10✦ most likely by UV photons by first stars
✦ when? how? important benchmark to understand galaxy formation
Djorgovski+
The Gunn-Peterson Test
✦ Lyα absorption features of QSOs indicating that IGM neutral fraction rapidly increasing to z ~ 6✦ close to reionization?
✦ but saturated GP troughs only gives a lower limit of nHI/nH > 10-3
White+’03
Fan+’05
“GP troughs”
Observational Constraints on Reionization History
✦ Fan+ ’06
A Next Step: Using Lyα Red Damping Wing✦ measurement of fHI=nHI/nH , rather than lower limit, is possible if damping wing feature by neutral IGM is detected!
✦ GRBs especially powerful:✦ simple power-law unlike quasars✦ no proximity effect✦ more normal regions than quasars
✦ Obstacles: ✦ low event rate of high-z GRBs✦ contamination by HI in host galaxies
✦ GRB 050904: the first meaningful constraint ✦ 95% C.L. upper limit fHI < 0.6 (TT+’06) GRB 050904@z=6.3, TT+ ‘06
GP trough → fHI > 10-3
damping wing → measure fHI
Observational Constraints on Reionization History
✦ Chornock+ ’14
Planck’13: zre = 11.4+4.0-2.8
The best opportunity ever: GRB 130606A
✦ exceptionally bright afterglow
✦ ultra-high S/N spectra taken by Gemini, GTC, Magellan, Subaru, VLT, ...
✦ host HI at most log(NHI)< 19.8, good for IGM study!✦ c.f. 21.6 for GRB 050904
Chornock+’13
Gemini vs. Subaru vs. VLT✦ Chornock et al. 2013 (Gemini, ApJ, 774, 26)
✦ no evidence for IGM HI by damping wing analysis✦ fHI < 0.11 (2σ)✦ spectral index β=-1.99 (fν∝νβ), very different from β~-1 found by more recent studies
✦ Totani et al. 2014 (Subaru, PASJ, 66, 63)✦ ~3σ preference for IGM HI, with
✦ fHI ~ 0.09 if zIGM, u = zGRB = 5.913 (β=-0.93)✦ fHI ~ 0.4 if zIGM, u = 5.83 < 5.913 (β=-0.74) ← now disfavored from VLT measurement of β
✦ Hartoog et al. 2014 (VLT, arXiv:1409.4804)✦ β=-1.02 from optical-NIR spectrum ✦ no evidence for IGM HI, fHI < 0.03 (3σ)
Damping Wing Analysis for Subaru Data✦ Subaru/FOCAS spectrum in 10.4-13.2 hr after the burst✦ S/N=100 per pixel (0.74A)!✦ 8400-8900 A which is the most sensitive to IGM HI signature✦ avoid strong absorption
TT+’14
Fitting Residuals ✦ power-law + host HI only
✦ free parameters: power-law index, NHI, σv
✦ showing curved systematic residual✦ amplitude ~ 0.6% of continuum flux
✦ diffuse IGM HI can reduce the residual by about 3 sigma statistics ✦ fHI ~ 0.1, if IGM extending to zu=zGRB=5.913
TT+’14
DW from various components✦ wavelength close to Lyα center is dominated by HI in the host galaxy
✦ IGM HI becomes relatively important at wavelength far from Lyα
✦ wavelength range choice is a crucial issue in the damping wing analysis for reionzation!
TT+’14
Very subtle! systematics?
✦ various sources of systematics examined, but unlikely to explain the 0.6% curvature in the narrow range of 8400-8900 A✦ spectrum reduction, calibration
✦ calibration accuracy is < 0.2%✦ no known systematics can explain the observed curvature
✦ extinction at host ✦ extinction does not explain the strong curvature in the short wavelength range
✦ DLAs on the sightline ✦ disfavored from Lyβ and metal absorption
TT+’14
✦ To reveal this, the Subaru and VLT spectra have been exchanged by the two teams✦ I thank the VLT team for kindly agreeing with this exchange
✦ VLT spectrum averaged on the Subaru spectrum grids✦ VLT has a better spectral resolution✦ S/N similar per wavelength
✦ no systematic trend on > 100 Å scale
✦ how about adopting the same Subaru analysis code on the VLT spectrum?
what’s the origin of Subaru/VLT controversy?
TT+’15
Result of TT’s-code on VLT spectrum. 1
✦ βfixed at -1.02 as measured by VLT✦ IGM HI extends to zGRB,u = zGRB = 5.913
✦ The original Subaru result (~3σ preference for IGM HI) confirmed using VLT spectrum
Result of Subaru-code on VLT spectrum. 2
✦ the same trend for the fit residuals by no IGM HI model
Subaru data VLT data
What’s the origin of discrepancy?✦ wavelength ranges used are very different for Subaru and VLT papers
✦ 8406-8462 Å by VLT✦ 8426-8900 Å by Subaru (<8426Å avoided because of strong dependence on host HI velocity distribution)
✦ when the TT’s-code adopted on the VLT spectrum, I confirmed the VLT paper result (no evidence for host HI)
✦ the VLT-paper range is highly sensitive to velocity distribution of HI in the host✦ σv = 61.8±3.3 km/s by our fit result✦ systematics about unknown realistic velocity distribution is a worry
range adopted by VLT paperwhite regions used in Subaru paper
On the Lyα cross section formulae✦ classical Rayleigh scattering
✦ Lorentzian
✦ Peebles’ two-level approximation
✦ second order perturbation theory for fully quantum mechanical scattering (Bach+’14)
effect on HI opacity by Lyα cross section formulae
✦ ~10% difference in cross section / HI opacity
✦ The Peebles’ formulae often used shows the largest deviation from BL (Bach-Lee) formula
✦ How much is the effect on the damping wing fitting results?✦ perhaps the evidence for IGM HI reported by TT+’14 just an artifact by using inaccurate cross section formula?
GRB 130606A case
Fitting results dependence on cross section formulae✦ on the Subaru data of the GRB 130606A spectrum✦ with the fitting method of TT+’14, only changing Lyα cross section formula
✦ preference to IGM HI by ~3-4σ unchanged
Conclusions (1/2)✦ GRB 130606A gives the best ever opportunity to probe reionization by GRBs
✦ ~3σ evidence for IGM HI is found by the damping wing analysis of Subaru spectrum✦ fHI ~ 0.1 if zIGM,u = zGRB = 5.913 ✦ robust against known systematics (spectrum, extinction, intervening DLA)✦ the first evidence for intervening HI to GRB sightlines✦ suggesting that the reionization not yet complete at z~6, but needs more sightlines to examine inhomogeneity
✦ discrepant result from VLT (Haartoog et al. 2014)?✦ data consistent with each other, and the same result confirmed when the same analysis is done on the two different spectra✦ high precision damping wing analysis indeed possible!
✦ discrepancy comes from different wavelength ranges✦ need to be careful for systematics in analysis methods!✦ systematics about host HI velocity distribution seems serious when using range close to Lyα resonance
Conclusions (2/2)✦ Now we are in the era of “GRBs as a high precision reionzation probe”✦ sensitive to fHI ~ 0.1 at z~6!✦ systematics must be carefully treated
✦ Choice of Lyα cross section formulae is important in a high-precision analysis such as GRB 130606A✦ but preference to IGM HI reported by TT+’14 unchanged
✦ current limitation of GRBs as a reionization probe:✦ low event rate of sufficiently bright GRBs at z>~6✦ this situation will be improved by 30m-class telescopes✦ future GRB missions in synergy with 30m-class telescopes will be crucial
✦ good data for many GRBs would reveal not only the mean but also inhomogeneity of reionization history